Harris vs Yong suit decision Feb 29
by Kelimen Sawatan. Posted on December 24, 2011, Saturday
KOTA KINABALU: The High Court here set February 29, next year to deliver its judgement on the RM50 million suit brought by Tan Sri Harris Salleh against Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) president Datuk Yong Tec Lee and the party for allegedly insinuating that he (Harris) was involved in causing the plane crash that killed former Chief Minister Tun Fuad Stephens and all 10 others on board a Nomad aircraft on June 6, 1976.
Justice Dato’ Abdul Rahman Sebli fixed the date to deliver the decision after the defendants closed their case yesterday.
The judge ordered counsel Datuk Simon Shim, who acted for Yong and the party, who are the first and second defendants respectively, to submit his submissions on January 20, next year.
Harris’ counsel Yunof Maringking will submit his submissions in reply on February 10.
Simon had earlier on informed the court that there was no need for them to call Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah as the defendants’ witness as the defendants have made their points and established their case in this defamation trial.
“My instruction is that the defendants now rest their case,” he told the court.
The hearing of the suit started on Nov 16, this year with only Harris testifying in court as witness for plaintiff.
The defendants had called a total of seven witnesses with Yong being the last witness.
Harris, 81, who filed the suit on June 6, last year, is claiming for general damages, aggravated and exemplary damages of not less than RM50 million to be assessed separately against Yong and SAPP.
He is also seeking an injunction to restrain the defendants whether by themselves or their servants or employee or agents from printing and publishing further the statements and similar libel in any form or means.
During re-examination-in-chief by Simon, Yong informed the court that the latter’s statement published on April 5, 2010 did not refer to the plaintiff in any way.
“If I had wanted to accuse the plaintiff of anything I would have done so but that was not my intention and also there was nothing to that effect in the statement,” he stressed.
Yong said that had there been no present legal proceedings by the plaintiff against him and the party, he and the party would have taken steps to follow up with his call for re-investigation.
“If not because of the rules on subjudice, myself and the second defendant would have considered some form of signature campaign or online petition or a petition to the YDP Agong or the Prime Minister or if the rules of Parliament permit, to bring this matter to Parliament,” he said.
To another question from Simon, Yong said due to different versions of Tengku Razaleigh and the plaintiff pertaining to the air crash, he had repeated the call for a re-investigation in order to get the truth.
He further told the court that he disagreed with the plaintiff’s contention that the latter was the target of his call for re-investigation which was meant for re-investigation into the plane crash.
“I did not refer to the plaintiff in the statements and a call for re-investigation is simply a call for re-investigation into the plane crash,” he said.
He said there was no imputation or any insinuation that the plaintiff had prior knowledge of what would happen to the plane or any imputation or insinuation of crime on the plaintiff.
Earlier during cross-examination by the counsel for the plaintiff, Yong told the court that he agreed that there was an official government explanation in Parliament, but added “Whether that was the true cause or other causes or combination of causes I do not know.”
To another question from the plaintiff’s counsel, Yong agreed that before he made a press statement on April 4, 2010, and published the next day, he had not at any time checked personally with Tengku Razaleigh whether his account of the event prior to the air crash was true and accurate.
Yong however disagreed with the suggestion by the plaintiff’s counsel that the former’s reference of assassination in his statement on April 9, 2010 was with the purpose of creating a doubt on the mind of the public that the air crash was not merely an accident.
To a further question from the plaintiff’s counsel, Yong said that from the new information by Tengku Razaleigh, he wanted the June 6, 1976 air crash to be re-investigated.
He also disagreed with the counsel’s suggestion that the call for re-investigating the air crash respectively on April 5, and April 9, 2010 was politically motivated and calculated to cause total embarrassment, damage and hatred against the plaintiff’s integrity and reputation.
He further disagreed with the suggestion by the plaintiff’s counsel that the call for re-investigation into the air crash was an opportunity for him to influence the public perception that the true cause of the air crash was due to a plot to assassinate state leaders who were against the signing of the oil royalty agreement with Petronas.
Yong told the court that a re-investigation can put to rest any remaining doubts if any, hence bring about a complete closure of this incident.
“If as counsel suggested that a mere call for re-investigation can open up an old wound, with due respect it means that the wound had never completely healed,” he said.
